9 ms·

There is a lot of this that seems poorly thought through. Asking for an employee's medical records is forbidden. Asking an employee to undergo a medical exam i

by dolni 5y ago

There is a lot of this that seems poorly thought through. Asking for an employee's medical records is forbidden. Asking an employee to undergo a medical exam is forbidden. Asking questions about the employee's health or disabilities during the interview process is forbidden. See https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-medical-questions-examinations https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-medical-qu.... With all that said, what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere.

enkid 5y ago
I mean, why make people do a phone call if it doesn't actually help with the interview process?
- dolni 5y ago
  It does help with the interview process. A lot of communication lies in body language and tone of voice. Taking that out of the equation, absent a good reason, is going to eliminate useful information. Some people might exhibit behaviors that are problematic in a professional environment. To go into a hiring decision without that information would be a mistake, in my opinion.
  - wadefletch 5y ago
    I think that's very true in the context of sales jobs, or more generally anything that requires the same action of frequent, mission-critical person-to-person communication. I'm not so sure it applies in the context of a remote SWE.
    - dolni 5y ago
      That's kind of a tone-deaf thing to say, _especially_ given the recent allegations surrounding Activison-Blizzard (https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-unequal-pay-sexual-harassment-video-games https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzar...). It absolutely applies and is important.
      - sillysaurusx 5y ago
        (When you have to attack something as tone-deaf, it's useful to ask whether their comment was mistaken. In this case, I don't think your reply offers a counterargument.)
      - meowface 5y ago
        I don't see how those allegations are related to voice/face-to-face interviews or what's tone-deaf about the parent comment. I'm very skeptical that someone who's likely to sexually harass people will be any more likely to exhibit those signs in a voice or in-person conversation than in a written conversation. Someone trying to hide it will probably successfully hide it across all three forms of communication.
  - enkid 5y ago
    I would need to see some sort of evidence that a phone call can identify problematic behaviour in a systematic way before I would by into this.
    - dolni 5y ago
      It's well established that tone of voice conveys a lot of information when communicating. If a candidate says something during a phone call that makes the interviewer uncomfortable or have reservations, that's absolutely a legitimate reason not to hire someone.
      - enkid 5y ago
        Yes, tone provides a lot of information, but can someone accurately ascertain whether that tone will lead to problematic behaviour? I don't know. I would want to see some sort of research before accepting that this does what you say it does. Certainly, if someone were to say something sexist or racist in an interview, that would be a red flag. But I doubt most people would do that. So maybe you are able to weed some people out, but probably not very effectively, and you will likely still have to have other mitigations in place. In additions, you will have "false positives" in the form of people being misread. For example, they could be saying something genuinely and the interviewer thinks they are lying or being sarcastic. Are the false positives worth the true positives? I don't know. That's why I would want to see actual evidence.
        dolni 5y ago
        I think the most useful context for tone would be to weed out people who display anger, irritation, or snark. Especially when the situation doesn't call for it. > In additions, you will have "false positives" in the form of people being misread. For example, they could be saying something genuinely and the interviewer thinks they are lying or being sarcastic. Text alone makes this far more ambiguous. You're going to have _way_ more trouble gauging someone's actual intent via words alone than vs words + tone of voice. That's the point I was making. Tone of voice is a ton of information. Don't take my word for it, feel free to Google it and you will find pages and pages outlining just how important it is.
dsr_ 5y ago
One of the best things about accomodations is that they benefit nearly everyone. Ramps instead of stairs? Necessary for wheelchairs, but good for elderly knees and people temporarily on crutches or roller scooters. Keyboard of your choice? Necessary if you have low motor control, still good for preventing people from getting RSIs. Interview in writing instead of via voice? Guess what: benefits Deaf people, those who are hard of hearing, and people who have difficulty speaking.
- H8crilA 5y ago
  Interviews via Docs will have an even higher cheating rate than the phone calls, can't wait to hear stories about that, lol.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    That why you have multiple stages. It’s stupid to rule out accommodations because people might cheat. You shouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the transgressions of the guilty minority.
    - dolni 5y ago
      > You shouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the transgressions of the guilty minority. Have you stopped to think about just how much stuff we have to do and put up with as a society because a small number of people are dishonest? We have to have IDs, because people might lie about who they are. We have to have an entire (very expensive) criminal justice system because people might commit crimes. We have to have locks on the doors to our homes and vehicles, because people might trespass. We have to have cashiers and overly-complicated automated registers (with someone watching) because people might not want to pay for everything that they are taking out of a store. You show up at a closing for a new home, they want a cashier's check, not your personal one. Why? You might not actually be good for the money. Plus they do all the title work. Every bank has a giant safe. Every country has some weapons of war. It's very idealistic to say "well only a few people will cheat so it's fine." It isn't, and it never has been.
sircastor 5y ago
Part of accommodating people who have a disability is introducing equity and equality into the process, and making it possible for all candidates to use those options. There might be a perception that one route is easier than another, and if that’s the case, it’s a failure on the part of the interview process. Options provided for equality and equity are not supposed to ease requirements for a subset of people, but ensure that their evaluation doesn’t punish or discount them.
- dolni 5y ago
  Do the accommodations as stated not make you think that cheating an interview will become very easy? "I need extra time for my interview" and "I'm uncomfortable with a phone call" sounds like a very easy way to get third party help without anybody being the wiser. And again, that flies in the face of their attempt to actually level the playing field.
  - nullsense 5y ago
    Except all of those with a disability know from experience the sometimes gut-wrenching emotions that go along with the decision to tick the box "yes", "no", or "prefer not to say" as we weigh up a mental calculus of, despite how inclusive an organization appears to be, how that will affect our chances of something given inherent bias present in society. So... that's a sort of natural counter weight.
donkeyd 5y ago
Well, for one thing it's hiring people who may not be the stereotypical "cultural fit". I've always been a massive proponent of hiring based on "cultural fit", but have recently started to realize it can get really toxic that way. Hiring people who are good at their jobs, but may be different in a social setting can be a way of indirectly hiring people on the spectrum. If you have many extroverted employees, hiring more introverted people will inevitably lead to hiring people on the spectrum. How do you judge this? Well, personality tests are pretty common already, they can absolutely show traits that are more common in people with autism. Also, an interview can tell you a lot about a person.
- dolni 5y ago
  You raise good points and I am of the mind that this is a difficult problem without silver bullets. I don't believe there is any way to create and vet a "100% bias-free guaranteed" interview process. That said, our industry does have a reputation for being especially unwelcoming to women. It would be a shame if a candidate raised red flags and those flags went undetected or ignored in an attempt to be "inclusive".
- jdgoesmarching 5y ago
  I’ve always thought “cultural fit” was an odd thing to prioritize when we have research showing that (actual) diversity is more helpful for avoiding groupthink. Especially when this term is just begging for bias to creep in. One lesson that stuck with me was the Houston Rockets GM putting some barriers around how emotional judgments were allowed to influence decisions. Small rules like “don’t give players nicknames” or just giving less weight to personal interviews were good experiments in how to keep screenings more objective. We don’t have the granularity or measurability of new hire data as NBA offices do, but I think these concepts are still useful.
  - bitwize 5y ago
    > I’ve always thought “cultural fit” was an odd thing to prioritize when we have research showing that (actual) diversity is more helpful for avoiding groupthink. Astronaut 1: You mean... our work culture is conducive to groupthink? Astronaut 2: * points gun * Always has been...
endisneigh 5y ago
> With all that said, what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere. Nothing. A small minority of people gaming the system shouldn't necessarily mean you get rid of accommodations.
- dolni 5y ago
  It doesn't mean you have to get rid of them, but you should probably think about what the pitfalls are and how best to address them. I have written about those elsewhere in this thread, so I won't repeat them here.
Causality1 5y ago
What's the problem with that? If someone has trouble with phone interviews why should a diagnosis be a barrier to being able to give the best performance they can?
phreeza 5y ago
I am not an expert on the American legal system, but it seems like that would be fraud and thus a criminal matter. Companies could report suspected cases to the authorities. This here seems to be a case from the educational system where similar issues can arise: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/14/18265874/college-admissions-fraud-fbi-disability-accommodations https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/14/18265874/college-...
- dreyfan 5y ago
  Seriously? The charges in the admissions scandal had to do with mail fraud and bribery. Do you really think the American judicial system is going to get involved because some Google employees skipped a meeting by claiming they were Autistic?
  - phreeza 5y ago
    The article talks about students getting extra time on exams by falsely claiming disability accomodations. This seems somewhat equivalent to asking for accomodations on a job interview to me.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
I suspect that you may need to actively request these as an accommodation, and I suspect a lot of these restrictions go out the window then. [1] says "When an applicant asks for an accommodation for the job interview, the employer can require medical documentation." That also means that depending on how this is implemented, people who aren't aware of it, too shy, undiagnosed, or don't want their diagnosis on the record everywhere may not benefit from this at all. OTOH, some of the training may improve the situation in general, even when no accommodation has been requested. [1] https://askjan.org/articles/Job-Application-Interview-Stage-Dos-and-Donts.cfm https://askjan.org/articles/Job-Application-Interview-Stage-...
- TrinaryWorksToo 5y ago
  The employer can require medical documentation, but the documentation forbids disclosing a diagnosis.
TrinaryWorksToo 5y ago
Also forcing people to use accommodations they don't want is illegal.
deeblering4 5y ago
> what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere. I don't see how supporting the individual needs of others is a problem in any context. At the end of the day a candidate still needs to pass the interview. The point is to focus on their ability to do the actual work.
bawolff 5y ago
So the accomodation they list are: > extended interview time, providing questions in advance, or conducting the interview in writing in a Google Doc rather than verbally on a call Like, i dont think having these things would give an advantage to most people, so why not let them have it? Ext time - if you're doing a test in an interview that heavily depends on time you are doing it wrong imo. Lots of people get nervous and flustered during timed tests, and its totally contrived. Yes there are deadlines at work, but they're of the form you have to get this done by next week, not you have to read this document really fast and type this thing up really fast because you only have 20 min. Doing over google doc - i think there are a lot of people who are good at social cues who would be significantly disadvantaged by this. You just cut off a major source of info on what the interviewer is looking for, as well as preventing you from making a good impression via social means (being well spoken and funny is a major advantage in most interviews). Knowing the questions ahead of time - yeah, that might give an advantage. Sure interviewers should never ask questions that are googleable, but having time to think about it prior to the high stakes interview would probably help a lot of people. That said,why not just do this for everyone? It probably would make the interview less contrived and more like the real job.

by dolni 5y ago

enkid 5y ago

I mean, why make people do a phone call if it doesn't actually help with the interview process?

dolni 5y ago
It does help with the interview process. A lot of communication lies in body language and tone of voice. Taking that out of the equation, absent a good reason, is going to eliminate useful information. Some people might exhibit behaviors that are problematic in a professional environment. To go into a hiring decision without that information would be a mistake, in my opinion.
- wadefletch 5y ago
  I think that's very true in the context of sales jobs, or more generally anything that requires the same action of frequent, mission-critical person-to-person communication. I'm not so sure it applies in the context of a remote SWE.
  - dolni 5y ago
    That's kind of a tone-deaf thing to say, _especially_ given the recent allegations surrounding Activison-Blizzard (https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-unequal-pay-sexual-harassment-video-games https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019293032/activision-blizzar...). It absolutely applies and is important.
    - sillysaurusx 5y ago
      (When you have to attack something as tone-deaf, it's useful to ask whether their comment was mistaken. In this case, I don't think your reply offers a counterargument.)
    - meowface 5y ago
      I don't see how those allegations are related to voice/face-to-face interviews or what's tone-deaf about the parent comment. I'm very skeptical that someone who's likely to sexually harass people will be any more likely to exhibit those signs in a voice or in-person conversation than in a written conversation. Someone trying to hide it will probably successfully hide it across all three forms of communication.
- enkid 5y ago
  I would need to see some sort of evidence that a phone call can identify problematic behaviour in a systematic way before I would by into this.
  - dolni 5y ago
    It's well established that tone of voice conveys a lot of information when communicating. If a candidate says something during a phone call that makes the interviewer uncomfortable or have reservations, that's absolutely a legitimate reason not to hire someone.
    - enkid 5y ago
      Yes, tone provides a lot of information, but can someone accurately ascertain whether that tone will lead to problematic behaviour? I don't know. I would want to see some sort of research before accepting that this does what you say it does. Certainly, if someone were to say something sexist or racist in an interview, that would be a red flag. But I doubt most people would do that. So maybe you are able to weed some people out, but probably not very effectively, and you will likely still have to have other mitigations in place. In additions, you will have "false positives" in the form of people being misread. For example, they could be saying something genuinely and the interviewer thinks they are lying or being sarcastic. Are the false positives worth the true positives? I don't know. That's why I would want to see actual evidence.
      - dolni 5y ago
        I think the most useful context for tone would be to weed out people who display anger, irritation, or snark. Especially when the situation doesn't call for it. > In additions, you will have "false positives" in the form of people being misread. For example, they could be saying something genuinely and the interviewer thinks they are lying or being sarcastic. Text alone makes this far more ambiguous. You're going to have _way_ more trouble gauging someone's actual intent via words alone than vs words + tone of voice. That's the point I was making. Tone of voice is a ton of information. Don't take my word for it, feel free to Google it and you will find pages and pages outlining just how important it is.

dsr_ 5y ago

One of the best things about accomodations is that they benefit nearly everyone. Ramps instead of stairs? Necessary for wheelchairs, but good for elderly knees and people temporarily on crutches or roller scooters. Keyboard of your choice? Necessary if you have low motor control, still good for preventing people from getting RSIs. Interview in writing instead of via voice? Guess what: benefits Deaf people, those who are hard of hearing, and people who have difficulty speaking.

H8crilA 5y ago
Interviews via Docs will have an even higher cheating rate than the phone calls, can't wait to hear stories about that, lol.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  That why you have multiple stages. It’s stupid to rule out accommodations because people might cheat. You shouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the transgressions of the guilty minority.
  - dolni 5y ago
    > You shouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the transgressions of the guilty minority. Have you stopped to think about just how much stuff we have to do and put up with as a society because a small number of people are dishonest? We have to have IDs, because people might lie about who they are. We have to have an entire (very expensive) criminal justice system because people might commit crimes. We have to have locks on the doors to our homes and vehicles, because people might trespass. We have to have cashiers and overly-complicated automated registers (with someone watching) because people might not want to pay for everything that they are taking out of a store. You show up at a closing for a new home, they want a cashier's check, not your personal one. Why? You might not actually be good for the money. Plus they do all the title work. Every bank has a giant safe. Every country has some weapons of war. It's very idealistic to say "well only a few people will cheat so it's fine." It isn't, and it never has been.

sircastor 5y ago

Part of accommodating people who have a disability is introducing equity and equality into the process, and making it possible for all candidates to use those options. There might be a perception that one route is easier than another, and if that’s the case, it’s a failure on the part of the interview process. Options provided for equality and equity are not supposed to ease requirements for a subset of people, but ensure that their evaluation doesn’t punish or discount them.

dolni 5y ago
Do the accommodations as stated not make you think that cheating an interview will become very easy? "I need extra time for my interview" and "I'm uncomfortable with a phone call" sounds like a very easy way to get third party help without anybody being the wiser. And again, that flies in the face of their attempt to actually level the playing field.
- nullsense 5y ago
  Except all of those with a disability know from experience the sometimes gut-wrenching emotions that go along with the decision to tick the box "yes", "no", or "prefer not to say" as we weigh up a mental calculus of, despite how inclusive an organization appears to be, how that will affect our chances of something given inherent bias present in society. So... that's a sort of natural counter weight.

donkeyd 5y ago

Well, for one thing it's hiring people who may not be the stereotypical "cultural fit". I've always been a massive proponent of hiring based on "cultural fit", but have recently started to realize it can get really toxic that way. Hiring people who are good at their jobs, but may be different in a social setting can be a way of indirectly hiring people on the spectrum. If you have many extroverted employees, hiring more introverted people will inevitably lead to hiring people on the spectrum. How do you judge this? Well, personality tests are pretty common already, they can absolutely show traits that are more common in people with autism. Also, an interview can tell you a lot about a person.

dolni 5y ago
You raise good points and I am of the mind that this is a difficult problem without silver bullets. I don't believe there is any way to create and vet a "100% bias-free guaranteed" interview process. That said, our industry does have a reputation for being especially unwelcoming to women. It would be a shame if a candidate raised red flags and those flags went undetected or ignored in an attempt to be "inclusive".
jdgoesmarching 5y ago
I’ve always thought “cultural fit” was an odd thing to prioritize when we have research showing that (actual) diversity is more helpful for avoiding groupthink. Especially when this term is just begging for bias to creep in. One lesson that stuck with me was the Houston Rockets GM putting some barriers around how emotional judgments were allowed to influence decisions. Small rules like “don’t give players nicknames” or just giving less weight to personal interviews were good experiments in how to keep screenings more objective. We don’t have the granularity or measurability of new hire data as NBA offices do, but I think these concepts are still useful.
- bitwize 5y ago
  > I’ve always thought “cultural fit” was an odd thing to prioritize when we have research showing that (actual) diversity is more helpful for avoiding groupthink. Astronaut 1: You mean... our work culture is conducive to groupthink? Astronaut 2: * points gun * Always has been...

endisneigh 5y ago

> With all that said, what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere. Nothing. A small minority of people gaming the system shouldn't necessarily mean you get rid of accommodations.

dolni 5y ago
It doesn't mean you have to get rid of them, but you should probably think about what the pitfalls are and how best to address them. I have written about those elsewhere in this thread, so I won't repeat them here.

Causality1 5y ago

What's the problem with that? If someone has trouble with phone interviews why should a diagnosis be a barrier to being able to give the best performance they can?

phreeza 5y ago

I am not an expert on the American legal system, but it seems like that would be fraud and thus a criminal matter. Companies could report suspected cases to the authorities. This here seems to be a case from the educational system where similar issues can arise: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/14/18265874/college-admissions-fraud-fbi-disability-accommodations https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/3/14/18265874/college-...

dreyfan 5y ago
Seriously? The charges in the admissions scandal had to do with mail fraud and bribery. Do you really think the American judicial system is going to get involved because some Google employees skipped a meeting by claiming they were Autistic?
- phreeza 5y ago
  The article talks about students getting extra time on exams by falsely claiming disability accomodations. This seems somewhat equivalent to asking for accomodations on a job interview to me.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

I suspect that you may need to actively request these as an accommodation, and I suspect a lot of these restrictions go out the window then. [1] says "When an applicant asks for an accommodation for the job interview, the employer can require medical documentation." That also means that depending on how this is implemented, people who aren't aware of it, too shy, undiagnosed, or don't want their diagnosis on the record everywhere may not benefit from this at all. OTOH, some of the training may improve the situation in general, even when no accommodation has been requested. [1] https://askjan.org/articles/Job-Application-Interview-Stage-Dos-and-Donts.cfm https://askjan.org/articles/Job-Application-Interview-Stage-...

TrinaryWorksToo 5y ago
The employer can require medical documentation, but the documentation forbids disclosing a diagnosis.

TrinaryWorksToo 5y ago

Also forcing people to use accommodations they don't want is illegal.

deeblering4 5y ago

> what prevents anybody from saying "I don't feel comfortable taking a phone call" or "I need extra time for this" without actually being autistic? Then the disadvantage they claim to be removing hasn't actually gone anywhere. I don't see how supporting the individual needs of others is a problem in any context. At the end of the day a candidate still needs to pass the interview. The point is to focus on their ability to do the actual work.

bawolff 5y ago

So the accomodation they list are: > extended interview time, providing questions in advance, or conducting the interview in writing in a Google Doc rather than verbally on a call Like, i dont think having these things would give an advantage to most people, so why not let them have it? Ext time - if you're doing a test in an interview that heavily depends on time you are doing it wrong imo. Lots of people get nervous and flustered during timed tests, and its totally contrived. Yes there are deadlines at work, but they're of the form you have to get this done by next week, not you have to read this document really fast and type this thing up really fast because you only have 20 min. Doing over google doc - i think there are a lot of people who are good at social cues who would be significantly disadvantaged by this. You just cut off a major source of info on what the interviewer is looking for, as well as preventing you from making a good impression via social means (being well spoken and funny is a major advantage in most interviews). Knowing the questions ahead of time - yeah, that might give an advantage. Sure interviewers should never ask questions that are googleable, but having time to think about it prior to the high stakes interview would probably help a lot of people. That said,why not just do this for everyone? It probably would make the interview less contrived and more like the real job.